Search form

Michigan Group Responds to Synod’s Decision on Homosexuality

A group of members and pastors from several West Michigan Christian Reformed churches have organized to provide educational opportunities for congregations about the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals in their churches.

Complete Covenant members Sheryl Mulder, Arlene Beukema, Cara Oosterhouse, and David LaGrand at a recent meeting of the group.

The action was prompted by the decision of Synod 2011, the annual leadership meeting of the Christian Reformed Church, not to appoint a study committee to review the biblical teachings regarding homosexual orientation and practice.

“Initially I was surprised at the synod decision, and angry,” said Sheryl Mulder, 51, an elder at Eastern Avenue CRC in Grand Rapids. She felt she had to do something, so Mulder began to network with representatives from other churches around the region. They have been meeting monthly since last September.

They call themselves All One Body to emphasize that God’s covenant of love expressed in baptism is not broken by one’s sexual orientation, nor should the commitments made by a congregation at baptism be compromised.

All One Body has already provided presentations at adult Sunday school classes in the region. Presentations have included both personal testimony and scriptural analysis. The group also plans to develop resources for pastors on providing pastoral care for individuals with a same-sex orientation as well as for congregation members who may express opposition.

Art Jongsma, 68, a member of Calvin CRC in Grand Rapids, has made presentations on alternative interpretations of key scriptural references. Reflecting on the large turnout at such events, he noted, “People want to talk about this. It is maybe not just controversial, but it touches a lot of people’s lives too.”

Get All the Updates!

Comments

John Zylstra replied on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 2:47pm

I feel sorry for the sunday school classes at Eastern Avenue crc. with the apparent lack of leadership within that church. From this distance, based on this article, it does not look good. (perhaps the article is not clear enough...)

I am so relieved to see that the CRC is actually discussing this issue in a constructive way. My husband and I left the CRC almost 20 years ago because we were weary of a denomination that had doctrine of unconditional love and grace on the books but was fixated on whom God loved best.

All the best to Complete Covenant as they endure the firestorm that is sure to erupt.

Q. Can those be saved
who do not turn to God
from their ungrateful
and unrepentant ways?

A. By no means.
Scripture tells us that
no unchaste person,
no idolater, adulterer, thief,
no covetous person,
no drunkard, slanderer, robber,
or the like
will inherit the kingdom of God.
Q & A 108
Q. What does the seventh commandment teach us?

A. That God condemns all unchastity,
and that therefore we should thoroughly detest it
and live decent and chaste lives,
within or outside of the holy state of marriage.

Kirk, I don't see gay or lesbian couples living in committed, lifelong relationships mentioned in any of the lists of Q & A 87 or 108.

Gay christians can also be grateful to God and repent of their sins. Gay couples can be decent and chaste in their relationships without forgoing physical intimacy. Being gay does not mean a person is an idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous person, drunkard, slanderer or a robber. These things have nothing to do with being gay - anyone / everyone can be guilty of these sins irrespective of sexual orientation.

I've got a big problem with saying that requires approval of homosexual sex, and with extending that approval. Including adulterers doesn't require approval of adultery, does it? Does including liars require we approve of lies? How about those who dishonor their parents? Must we approve of that if we are to include them?

Homosexual sex is sin. We don't need to redefine sin as not sin, or grace as not needing grace, in order to include those who sin in this or any other manner.

Art Jongsma's presentations about interpreting scripture are excellent. As additional resources for those wishing to learn more about this subject online, here are some websites that provide helpful information about key scriptural references.

I don't see a way out of this quagmire/disagreement, either. But I don't see that Complete Covenant is really that much of a start at a resolution, either, since it seems to be premised on complete agreement with only one of the parties to this disagreement.

I should like to see A. Jongsma's presentation on the Scripture passages, though I doubt it is much different from the seriously flawed arguments of Boswell & Rogers whose books you referred me to earlier. Still, I'd like to see it.

As someone who is participating in this group and work, I have seen the hurt this issue causes to so many. None of our committee members wish to see our church torn apart over this issue. Yet we know we must begin to dialogue about it. I only ask that all CRC members, wherever they land on this issue, pray for the Holy Spirit to guide our group and guide this denomination. I also ask that we pray for the ability to listen to each other, love each other, and acknowledge with humility that none of us has all the answers to these difficult questions. Only God does. Grace and peace to each one of you.

The mere fact that some people are in pain is not sufficient reason to change one's mind on a question. Indeed, love may even require the intentional infliction of pain. Discipline hurts.

Neither does the fact that I don't have all the answers mean I don't have any. Humility does not require us to claim we can know nothing of the truth.

I do pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us all, and I am confident that he will. Indeed, he has - and based on that guidance to date, I am compelled to remain where I am on this issue.

To whit, homosexual sex is sin. It is not of a greater magnitude than other sins and it is not an excuse for withholding the grace of God or the love we are called to extend to all whom he has made. But it is still sin and I have seen no cogent biblical case to the contrary. In fact, as far as I can see, the Bible speaks rather clearly on the matter.

I take no pleasure in this, but when we pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and the Holy Spirit provides that guidance, it seems to me the answer is to follow, however difficult it may be, not to pray for different guidance until I get something more acceptable to me.

"The mere fact that some people are in pain is not sufficient reason to change one's mind..." "Indeed, love may even require the intentional infliction of pain." etc. etc. These phrases sound hauntingly similar to lines from "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller.

Part of the reason why this is such a difficult situation for Christians to discuss is becuase it is not simply about people who are gay and how we should treat them .When we talk about homosexuality and the church we are dealing with how we view GOd ,how we view scripture,our view of human sin and brokeness, how we beleive the spirit moves and acts. This is not just an "issue", this has to do with core elements of our faith and how we see God and the world he has made. So when Sheryl Mulder and others from Complete Covenant say that we must dialaouge about this (and I agree with her about talking although I probably disagree with her views on homosexuality) sexuality is really only part of it. We are asking fundamental questions about God and how we view Him and how he made us and this world.

Miller's play examines some of these same themes - including the use of some truths to mask THE truth. And there is no doubt that the truth of discipline (one of the marks of the true church according to the Belgic Confession) was - is - often used by those in authority to avoid self-discipline. There is a reason why "pharisee" has become pejorative.

The truth that we must love one another can be - and also is - used to the same purpose: to mask the truth and avoid discipline.

That a truth is misused and abused, however, does not make it less true.

Just hearing a recent tidbit that CRC is dealing w, the issue of homosexuality probably again made me want to see what the latest riff is. Specifically because i was raised in the Crc church, since left , and now know its opened its door to women pastors but for years preached against it or held the position it was not biblically sound. Nevertheless it revisted the matter, held forums and overall decided the women can now preach. Need I say more ! I haven't seen the latest scoop on Crc's position of accepting or not accepting homosexuals in the ministry as active members but seeing a comment was not interested in "revisiting or holding open-forums " made me wonder what a big mistake Crc has made. Ignorance is bless. Jesus.com

We know that Planned Parenthood is a dangerous place for a mother and her unborn child. They leave a person trapped in a self destructive way of life. Next door to this place, in the city where I live, is the Omega House. It is a place of refuge, safety, encouragement and wise counsel for hundreds of women entering through their doors.

In the same way, thousands of people have been delivered from homosexuality, not through the ministry, counsel of people who condone, endorse and allow for homosexuality, but just the opposite. Rather, through a place where all are welcomed and counseled and are encouraged to get right with God.

A church that loves, looks like the Omega House. Praise God that He is spiritually delivering people from the bondage of homosexuality.

Brian Tebben, I think you are absolutely correct in your comments and I appreciate your part of this dialogue. Even if we disagree on LGBT same sex partnerships, we can begin to dialogue on the issues you discuss. How do we interpret Scripture? What does God reveal to us about the pre-Fall world and what don't we know? How does the knowledge God gives us through the sciences (although humanly flawed)affect our interpretations of truth and Scripture? Is Scripture really as clear on this issue as we thought it was? Or could this be another incidence, such as our interpretation of slavery passages, that has been incorrectly interpreted? And finally, what can we agree to have differences of opinion about but still agree we are brothers and sisters in God's church?

Brian is absolutely right. This is a much, much deeper issue. There is one place to begin, total submission to Christ and His Word. Paul, in Colossians says, "The mystery, hidden for long ages past, but now revealed, is this, Christ in you, the hope of glory." Sin is falling short of God's glory. Sin is a term from archery, whenever an arrow misses, it is sin. God's glory is his moral character, that's what we were created to reflect, to image. God reveals his moral character in his commandments and laws.
We come in faith not only to a Saviour, but also a Lord. He is Lord because of who He is. He created us, male and female, to be united as male and female (Gen. 2.24). After the fall, every kind of rebellion exists. Christ didn't set us free from bondage to sin (falling short of God's glory) simply to let us remain in it, rather to redeem us into what he created us to be in the first place. Paul also explains in Colossians that we will be in constant war against the old nature. It sounds like the church is being asked to give up the fight and to justify it by calling the old nature new. I am concerned, very concerned that our desire to demonstrate love, kindness and dialogue will only result in unrepentant spoiled children (orientation aside) who want the inheritance to spend as they wish.

God A: punitive, vindictive, narrow minded, legalistic, inflexible, establishes arbitrary laws and insists on compliance to prove dominance. Godâ€™s relationship to his people is that of lord, enforcer, master, owner.

God B: forgiving, broad minded, embracing all humanity with open arms, no law - rather, guidance to facilitate love of God and neighbor. God extravagantly dispenses grace to anyone who asks for it. Godâ€™s relationship to his people is analogous to parent, spouse, lover, friend and companion.

Is God's love unconditional? Didn't the Father glorify the Son because the Son was perfectly obedient? Doesn't our salvation depend upon Christ's perfect obedience?

The son in John's analogy says to God A & B, "My love is conditional on what I think is right, not on what you know is right for me. If you won't accept me on my terms, I'll reject you, or reinvent you in my image.

This is exactly why Synod should have gone forward with another study report to examine the issue. This sort of activity runs contrary to the spirit of the Form of subscription. According to that spirit, we should pursue the proper channels before teaching or preaching anything contrary to our confessions or the leadership of the broader church. Unfortunately, when the proper channels are pursued and the conversation is shut down, then people begin taking things into their own hands. When the courts stop functioning, the citizenry must defend themselves. When topics are not allowed to be discussed in the proper manner, then people turn to the improper. I foresee only damaging consequences for all. I would urge them to try again to pursue the proper channels, rather than pushing forward against Synod's leadership. And I would urge Synod not to shirk it's duty in making space for the conversations that need to happen. At the synodical level is the right place for this to happen, and when we put our heads together as the larger body to listen to God's lead, God will show us the way.

Mike, I agree that we should go through proper channels, however, what I see here is a group of people who are dissatisfied by the proper channels. Synod has consistently listened to requests and have said for years, that the report from 1973 does not need improvement. Those who are advocating full inclusion of practicing homosexual couples, disagree with the conclusions of 1973 and Synod. And, as they are unable to get what they want, they are going about it through improper channels.

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

This "conversation" should, every moment, start and end here.

Am I welcome? You are welcome. Does God love me in my triumphs and failures? God loves you in all of yours. Does God judge me as others judge me? Neither should I judge. Open your doors. God's door has been opened to you.

1. We will keep God first.
2. We will not bow to an idol.
3. We will not use His name as a cuss word.
4. We will keep a day set apart.

If we love our neighbor as ourselves then:

5. We will honor our Father and Mother (heterosexual marriage)
6. We will not murder ( Jesus equates hatred to murder)
7. We will not have sex outside of marriage (Jesus equates lust to adultery)
8. We will not steal from them.
9. We will not tell lies to them.
10. We will not covet things.

Many think of themselves as being a good person. Yet if asked if they have ever told a lie, stole something, used God's name as a curse word, or looked at a person with lust, they would have to consciously admit to being a liar, thief, blasphemer, or an adulterer at heart.

The Bible tells us sin is transgression of the law, and that the soul that sins will die. God is a holy and righteous judge. He hates sin! Jesus warned that God in His wrath, will cast all who sin against him into eternal fire "where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Justice demands that we pay for our crimes. (Matthew13:42) The Bible tells us that there is only one way to get to heaven...if a sinless person offered to take our punishment for us. Then justice would be served and we could go free!

We can't earn eternal life. It is God's gift to all who humble themselves and come to Jesus. Jesus said unless we repent, we will perish (to repent means to do a 180 from sin) and then to put our trust in Christ just like we would a parachute if we had to jump from a plane.

"For God will bring every deed into judgement, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

I think it is important to remember that Synod decided against re-examining the CRC position by a vote of 93 to 81. The "no" vote was not an overwhelming majority. The All One Body group is doing important work that is supported by at least 47% of the CRC.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams

This article says, "... Godâ€™s covenant of love expressed in baptism is not broken by oneâ€™s sexual orientation...".

TRUE. Even if one has the sexual orientation of a pedophile (and that is a specific orientation), still, "... Godâ€™s covenant of love expressed in baptism is [still] not broken by oneâ€™s sexual orientation...".

So why are we so "veiled" in talking about this? Those advocating the position that homosexual acts can be God honoring or dishonoring in the same way that hetersexual acts can be should simple say so -- instead of "almost saying it but not quite so as to not be accused of saying it." And Banner articles written about this should be equally clear. (And this one is not).

Only then can all see that the debate is not about "revisiting" a prior decision but about the desire of some that the CRCNA declare homosexual acts equal to heterosexual acts. And then lets have that debate. The "conversation" so far is like a high school debate team having to prepare for debate tournaments without knowing what the nationally adopted debate resolution is.

God is gracious, forgiving, slow to anger, abounding in mercy. That does not mean sinning - and that includes homosexual sex - is not sinning and therefore does not reequire grace, forgiveness, forebearance, or mercy. Neither should we sin more that grace may abound (I recall reading that somewhere...).

I'm all for welcoming sinners with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm not for redefining sin so that only the other person is a sinner.

I challenge all those who advocate for redefining sin (i.e., approval of homosexual sex): show me a biblical interpretation of the relevant texts that is consistent with Reformed hermeneutics, that does not twist texts out of their historical and linguistic context, that in short makes a cogent, coherent case for that approval. I have read everything suggested so far in the various articles and comments recently published in the BANNER pushing for gay marriage (about every other month over the last year or so) and I haven't seen it yet. I haven't seen anything that even comes close.

PNR and Doug Vande Griend, The points you make are excellent arguments in favor of having Synod appoint a study committee. There are brilliant scholars in the CRC who hold views on both sides of this issue. Why not ask the best and brightest to spend a few years working together to try to answer the important questions?

Those in favor of change seem unafraid of a methodical study performed by CRC scholars and leaders while those opposed to change insist on blocking any attempt to re-examine these questions. What does this tell you? It tells me that the anti change crowd is not interested in truth and only interested in perpetuating negative stereotypes.

Question: Have you ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? The dialectic method is often summarized as: thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

Many times conscientious and honest people will object to never-ending studies and conversations because oftentimes truth (thesis) is watered down or rejected for the sake of agreement (synthesis). The broader church has capitulated many truths through continual dialectic processes. Thus often you will see principled objections to opening and re-opening of subjects.

Put to another example, should we continually "study" the deity of Christ and include at the table those particularly opposed to accepting Christ's deity? Can anything be gained by such continued dialectic? If we can consider the matter of Christ's deity settled and binding, are there not other Biblical matters that the church can view settled without being accused of being scared to study them?

Eric, The scientific studies upon which much of Synod's 1973 decision were based have since been shown to be seriously flawed. The CRC's current position on this issue is based on erroneous assumptions. Furthermore, the biblical texts used to support the CRC's position have never really been discussed in a open manner. Traditional views of scripture were simply accepted as true. So, with all due respect, I don't believe the Hegelian Dialect applies in this situation. Thesis + refusal to consider other views = potential for an invalid thesis.

I really don't think arrogance and condescending attitudes are helpful to this discussion.

@John - depends on how you define "best and brightest". But, if you were to go back to the article in the BANNER in which the request from Sherman St. was first reported, you will likely find there a comment by me that indicates I have no problem with a study committee of that sort, but that I don't see the point in it.

As for the scientific studies, I think it is a mistake to base theological and biblical understanding on scientific studies in any event. Whatever scientific studies we might use now will, in 30-40 years, also be shown to have serious flaws. And 30-40 years after that, THOSE studies will be shown to have serious flaws.... So it goes with the ever developing world of scientific inquiry.

The biblical-theological argument remains the same. The material upon which we are reflecting has not changed in the last 40 years and neither have the arguments that we should re-read those texts, imposing on them a more modern context in order to have them say something more to the liking of a modern audience.

But study it away if it blows your hair back. A spade will remain a spade, no matter how many best and brightest scholars convince themselves that it is a modular terrestrial alteration implement.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." --HERBERT SPENCER

I would like to share Dr. J. I. Packer's understanding on this particular issue with both people who agree or disagree. Dr. Packer is on the Board of Governors at Regent College. He earned his doctoral degree on Richard Baxter at Oxford University and is one of the most influential Christian theologians of the 20th Century.

I had a great opportunity to study under Dr. Packer, author of Knowing God. He made the purpose of studying theology very clear before the first class even began.

He said that studying theology is for doxology. Theology must glorify God and serve to build up the Church, not to destroy the Church. He suggested to us that anyone who had no intention of doing it should leave the classroom.

Please remember that this article might represent a slightly different angle from our circumstance, but I believe that the principle behind it is the same.

Here are two links to article/interview regarding this view. They are worth looking at.

@John-
And there are some people who just keep "investigating" until they figure out a way to make the data say what they want.

Comes a time when we accept that a question is settled. Constant efforts to unsettle it serve little purpose and expend energy and time uselessly. I don't spend a lot of time re-investigating mathematical theorems that have held true since the time of Euclid and Pythagoras either.

You say, John, "The scientific studies upon which much of Synod's 1973 decision were based have since been shown to be seriously flawed."

What were those? I've read the report and am not uninformed about the "scientific" developments in this area. Please identity the studies Synod 1973 relied on that since have been shown to be flawed.

You also say, "The CRC's current position on this issue is based on erroneous assumptions."

Again, easy to claim. Exactly what are those "erroneous assumptions"?

You also say, "Furthermore, the biblical texts used to support the CRC's position have never really been discussed in a open manner."

Wow. Again, I've read the 1973 report. Please be specific about what you are broadly claiming here.

And can I/we assume that indeed, what you really want if for the CRCNA to declare that homosexual acts can be God honoring or dishonoring in the same way that hetersexual acts can be? In other words, are you dropping the veiled language and intending to be up front about what you really want?

Doug, This discussion is the third is a series. The comment box dialogue on this issue has been going on since the news story in the Banner reporting on Synodâ€™s decision dated June 14, 2011 entitled â€œNo new study of homosexuality.â€ The dialogue continued in the comment box following the article published on August 26, 2011 entitled â€œA Defining Issue for the 21st Century.â€

The scientific study in question is discussed at length by several participants in the comment box following the August news story. There are lengthy discussions about relevant biblical texts in comment boxes following the August and June articles. Rather than reiterate several months worth of dialogue, I suggest that you review these previous discussions.

I have never used veiled language â€“ I have always asserted that committed monogamous gay relationships (marriages) are God honoring in the same way as marriages between a man and a woman.

The bottom line from a half-centuryâ€™s theory and research: If there are environmental factors that influence sexual orientation, we do not yet know what they are.

2. "Homosexuality therefore is one of several disorders of manâ€™s sexual nature, along with problems such as impotence, frigidity, and hypersexuality." (page 10)

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

3. "Of course, the first responsibility for the homosexual is to exhaust the
possibility of sexual reorientation through all available means." (page 21)

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association formed the "Just the Facts Coalition." They developed and endorsed "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel" in 1999.

The primer says, in part:

"The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'

I am going to stop with these three, but I could easily continue with items in the document that are outdated. It is hard to believe all the contents of the document, when it is so easy to find parts of the document that are seriously out of date.

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.

Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at [fill in relevant oppressed people group] in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

OK, good. You want the CRCNA to declare that monogomous gay marriage is God honoring. I suspect that all those who really, really want a new study actually just want what you have decided is the case. I also suspect that most who do not want a new study don't want that decision.

So, why the veiled talk? Not from you perhaps but from others, including this article. And why do you want a new study when what you really want is a new decision?

I'm not being rhetorical. I'm honestly asking the questions, and you seem pretty straight-forward (unlike this article and the "A Defining Issue ..." article).